Ownership Partners have operational national development strategies

Download 77.08 Kb.
Size77.08 Kb.

December 11, 2006


  1. External partner harmonization in Mozambique has been based around the PARPA 2001-2005, and now around PARPA II, which includes commitment to the development of an aid policy. Implementation of the PARPA had a tangible impact on poverty through implementation of an action program detailed in the Economic and Social Plan (PES) and the Annual Progress Report assessing performance on implementation of the PES in the previous year. Integration of the PARPA program in the budget cycle through the PES, discussed in the National Assembly, has improved over the past two years thanks to a better monitoring effort supported by dialogue with the group of external partners providing budget support, known as the Program Aid Partnership or the G18, around the Performance Assessment Framework (PAF), a matrix of actions related to budget support.


  1. Partners have operational national development strategies

  1. Coherent long-term vision with medium-term strategy derived from vision

  1. A long-term vision, Agenda 2025, was prepared in 2003 by a civil society group, known as the Committee of Advisors, through a participatory process supported by UNDP and other partners, including the World Bank. Agenda 2025 informed preparation of the PARPA by setting broad general goals, though without discussing a strategy and action plan to achieve them. The Maputo Municipal Council has also formulated a long-term vision highlighting local priorities of development for a ten-year period.

  2. The Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty or Plano de Acção para a Redução da Pobreza Absoluta (PARPA II) for 2006-09, Mozambique’s second PRS,1 outlines a strategy to achieve the country’s own development goals in line with the MDGs and with the broad objectives of Agenda 2025. It updates the PARPA for 2001-05. While the PARPA II is widely considered as the country’s national development strategy, it is not the only planning instrument. PARPA II is acknowledged as the operational plan for the Government’s Five Year Programme, Mozambique’s National Development Plan.

  3. Every year the Government prepares a constitutionally-required Economic and Social Plan, the Plano Económico e Social (PES), and its progress report, the Balanço do Plano Económico e Social (BdPES), to guide implementation of the Five-Year Program and the PARPA. Since 2004, the BdPES serves as the PARPA Progress Report. The PARPA II also includes a monitoring tool, the Strategic Matrix, which will be integrated in the annual PES and BdPES.

  4. Updated medium-term strategies in some sectors, including the Education Sector Strategic Program for 2005-09, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for 2005-09 and the Strategic Plan for the Health Sector for 2005-10, have fed into the PARPA II, the Five-Year Program for 2005-09 and the 2006 and 2007 PES. Line ministries are updating other sector strategies, including in the areas of transport and roads. The Government has prepared a draft National Water Resources Policy linked to a sector development strategy. It is also developing a gender equality strategy. Other strategies under implementation, such as the Agricultural and Natural Resource Integrated Sector Plan and the National Strategy for Sustainable Development, informed the first PARPA, continue to guide policy action in their respective sectors and fed into the PARPA II.

  5. The Government is decentralizing strategic planning through a National Decentralized Planning Strategy and a National Strategy and Policy for Municipal Development. Districts are progressively introducing development and investment plans. In 2005, forty of the 128 districts in which Mozambique is divided had prepared development and investment plans. Twenty-seven additional districts are expected to have similar plans by 2007. The Maputo Municipal Council has developed a three-year strategy to guide implementation of its long-term vision. The Government has plans to incorporate district planning into the national planning process through an Integrated Participatory District Planning program. Also, provinces have prepared operational plans for 2006-07 around some of the strategic areas identified in the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for 2005-09.

  1. Country specific development targets with holistic, balanced, and well sequenced strategy

  1. Agenda 2025, the PARPA II, the Five-Year Program for 2005-09 and the 2006 PES are broadly in line with the MDGs. Mozambique has made good progress in moving toward the MDGs on child mortality, maternal mortality and immunization. Through implementation of the PARPA program Mozambique maintained a high level of economic growth and achieved a substantial reduction in poverty. The poverty headcount index was reduced by 15.3 percentage points from 69.4 percent in 1996-97 to 54.1 percent in 2002-03, bringing poverty well below the PARPA target. Poverty decreased more in rural than in urban areas. Substantial progress was made in particular in the social sectors with the concomitant impact on poverty reduction, partly due to the increased resources available as a result of the HIPC initiative. The number of children in primary school was almost doubled from approximately 2 to 4 million in the PARPA I period. Maternal mortality was reduced from an estimated 1,000 per 100,000 live births in the early 1990s to 408 per 100,000 live births in 2003. Under 5 mortality rates decreased from 219 to 178 per 1,000 live births. Infant mortality decreased from 147 to 124 per 1,000 live births. The capacity of the health system was expanded to start providing free antiretroviral treatment for HIV infection. In infrastructure, quality and reliability of urban water supply and the percentage of roads in good condition increased, and the number of landline telephones improved dramatically.

  2. Growth is expected to continue to have an impact on poverty reduction, and Mozambique could achieve the poverty MDG by 2015, assuming a 5 percent growth rate and unchanged inequality levels, aid flows and HIV/AIDS incidence. The infant mortality MDG is also likely to be met. There have been also some improvements in the health sector structure that supports the fight against HIV/AIDS. This, however, has not prevented an increase in the infection rate; HIV/AIDS has already reached 16 percent of the population.

  3. The development objectives and targets of the PARPA II reflect continuity with the objectives and targets of the first PARPA. Compared to the strategy for 2001-05, however, the PARPA II is better balanced between the social and the productive sectors, with a plan to enhance poverty reduction through greater development of the productive sectors. Specifically, the PARPA II stresses the need to improve the business environment and the financial sector in order to promote private sector growth. It identifies actions to strengthen the judicial system, reform the labor code, promote rural development and increase investment in infrastructure. It focuses on three pillars: i) governance, ii) human capital, and iii) economic development. It addresses macroeconomic and poverty issues, including poverty analysis, monitoring systems and public financial management. It also tackles HIV/AIDS, gender, natural disasters, science and technology, rural development, food security and nutrition, and demining as key cross-cutting issues.

  1. Capacity and resources for implementation

  1. The strategy is increasingly being linked to the budget, the Orçamento do Estado, through a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). While the MTEF, which is prepared on an annual basis with three-year projections for sectoral allocations, initially remained a process internal to the Ministry of Finance, coordination between the Ministry of Finance and the line ministries for the preparation of the MTEF has improved. The MTEF for 2007-09 was approved by the Cabinet and published. It is expected to shape public expenditure around the projected macroeconomic framework and the overall objectives of the PARPA II, furthering the practice established during implementation of the first PARPA. The MTEF offers an overview of the main macroeconomic variables, investment plans, sector and social programs, and annual budgetary forecasts. PARPA implementation is aligned with the Government’s fiscal year (January to December). The measurement of outcome and output targets is aligned with the measurement of fiscal outturns and reported in an annual report on PES implementation to the parliament in late February or early March. The Government is also taking some action to develop Medium-Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEFs) at the sectoral level. For example, plans are underway to develop a MTEF for 2007-09 for the agricultural sector.

  2. A key priority of the PARPA II is to strengthen revenue collection to allow for a steady rise in total expenditure on priority sectors. Preliminary data shows that 55 percent of total Government expenditure for 2005, excluding interest and financial operations, was allocated to the education and health sectors. The budget for primary and postsecondary education increased from 5 percent of GDP in 2003 to 5.2 percent of GDP in 2005. However, it declined as a percentage of total expenditure from 20 percent in 2003 to 19 percent in 2005. Expenditure in PARPA priority sectors such as education, health and infrastructure is expected to increase by 2.6 percent in 2006, accounting for 69.5 percent of total expenditure.

  3. Implementation of the decentralized framework for service delivery began in 2004, providing for increased budgetary and administrative responsibility at the local level. For the first time, the 2006 budget assigned investment funds to the districts. The Maputo Municipal Government is planning to improve the use of resources by progressively moving from an input-based to a results-oriented budget. Local government capacity is being strengthened through learning-by-doing approaches implemented in 8 municipalities and 49 districts.

  1. Participation of national stakeholders in strategy formulation and implementation

  1. In March 2005, two separate ministries, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Planning and Development, replaced the Ministry of Planning and Finance, which had been responsible for coordinating the formulation and the implementation of the PARPA, the Five-Year Program, the PES and the budget. The Ministry of Planning and Development currently coordinates planning, including the preparation and implementation of the PARPA II, while the Ministry of Finance takes the lead in the preparation of the budget. There is also an Economic Council which includes key ministers.

  2. When formulating the PARPA II, the Government mostly relied on the structures responsible for monitoring and coordinating PARPA implementation. Between July and December 2005, Working and Thematic Groups, which include line ministries, external partners and national stakeholders, met regularly to identify strategic objectives for the PARPA II. Following its finalization, the PARPA II was approved by the Council of Ministers in May 2006. Between June and July 2006, a Quality Control Group led by the Ministry of Planning and Development and external partners worked to reach agreement across government and external partners on the Strategic Matrix, which was finalized in September 2006. Civil society representatives participated for the first time in a workshop to validate the Matrix, held in July 2006.

  3. There is an Observatório de Pobreza (OP) which was established by the Government in April 2003 as a consultative forum for discussion of poverty reduction issues. The OP is facilitating regular dialogue between Government and stakeholders on development objectives and poverty issues. For example, the OP met regularly to provide inputs for the preparation of the PARPA II. OP meetings build on discussions and inputs gathered at the local level through provincial poverty observatories, the Observatórios de Pobreza Provinciais (OPPs). OPPs are being established in all provinces, and their inputs were conveyed during preparation of PARPA II. However, OP meetings usually last one day and have been perceived by some participants as insufficient to foster participation. The Government is taking some action to broaden stakeholder participation in policy formulation outside the OP and OPPs. At the end of 2005, it organized a National Seminar on a draft Anti-Corruption Strategy. The recommendations and inputs provided by stakeholders contributed to the final Strategy. Also, some of the local development plans such as the Maputo medium-term strategy and long-term vision have been developed through a consultative process which included a number of Stakeholder and Technical Workshops held in November 2005.

  4. Civil society is actively engaged in policy dialogue with the Government. CSO representatives, such as the umbrella NGO G-20, participate in the Working and Thematic Groups, the OP and OPPs. While civil society was not consulted for the preparation of the 2003 and 2004 PARPA Progress Reports, since 2004 the BdPES and the PES are discussed with civil society. Party representatives, churches and various associations were among those represented in the Committee of Advisors which coordinated the preparation of Agenda 2025. The Committee of Advisors, formally disbanded, has remained active as an informal advocacy group after the completion of Agenda 2025 and is advocating stronger links between Agenda 2025, the PARPA II, the PES and the budget.

  5. The Government has taken action to involve the private sector in policy formulation. Some umbrella organizations, including the CTA-Confederação das Associações Económicas which assembles most business associations, are represented in the OP. The Government is also consulting the private sector on key policy issues such as procurement reform. Also, the Ministry of Labor has worked with the private sector and trade unions to prepare a new Labor Law which was submitted to Parliament in 2006 and is expected to be discussed in 2007. Private sector representatives participate in the PARPA Working and Thematic Groups. The private sector has been consulted on PES and BdPES formulation.

  6. Parliamentary involvement is strengthening. The National Assembly endorsed Agenda 2025 and approves the annual PES, the budget, the Five-Year Program and the BdPES, as mandated by the Constitution. The PARPA II Strategic Matrix will be presented to the National Assembly through the PES and BdPES. The Government submits to the National Assembly quarterly budget reports and semi-annual BdPES reports which contain information on PARPA implementation. The Budget and Planning Committee, the Commissão do Plano e Orçamento, examines the budget and the quarterly budget execution reports and reports to the National Assembly’s plenary.


  1. Reliable country systems

  1. The Government is taking measures to strengthen fiduciary systems building on a concerted move by external partners toward budget support. For example, Public Financial Management Assessments are jointly prepared by the Government and the group of external partners providing budget support, known as the Program Aid Partnership (PAP) or the G18, which was established in 2004. The last assessment, which was carried out according to the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) methodology, was completed in March 2006 and led to an update of the Public Financial Management action plan. Public Financial Management Assessments are expected to be undertaken every two or three years. Also, the rollout of the Integrated Financial Management System, SISTAFE, which was introduced in the Ministries of Finance and Planning in 2004, is contributing to improving reliability of budget transactions. However, not all transactions are being processed through SISTAFE, and there are still some shortfalls and overruns in the execution of the budget. SISTAFE has been used by the main spending ministries since July 2006 and should be rolled out to all Ministries by the end of 2006. The 2005 World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) performance criterion that assesses the quality of budgetary and financial management places Mozambique at 3.5 on a scale of 1 (very weak) to 6 (very strong).

  2. Also, the Government is taking some action to strengthen internal and external audit capacity. A Tribunal Administrativo is Mozambique’s Supreme Audit Institution. The Tribunal Administrativo enjoys a reputation of being largely independent. It reports directly to the National Assembly on budget execution, use of public funds and public administration, as required by the Constitution. The Tribunal Administrativo is also responsible for reviewing the application of external funds provided to the Government through loans, grants, subsidies and guarantees. There is some evidence that the quality of the audits of general state accounts, conducted by the Tribunal Administrativo, improved in 2005. However, similar to the rest of the justice system, the Tribunal Administrativo struggles to fulfill its mandate under severe capacity constraints. Performance audits are relatively new in Mozambique. In 2006, the Inspecçao Geral das Finanças under the Ministry of Finance initiated performance audits of external funds in selected sectors, including justice. Also, in 2005 the Ministry of Finance completed a diagnostic study of internal control institutions and completed a value for money audit in the road sector.

  3. While regulatory requirements classify open competition as the preferred procurement method, less than 50 percent of contracts above the national threshold for small purchases are awarded on an open competitive basis. Procurement practices are expected to improve following the approval of a new Procurement Code in December 2005, which adheres to internationally accepted good practices. The new Code provides for the creation of an independent regulator, a procurement complaint mechanism, and the establishment of judiciary mechanisms that will be progressively introduced over 2006-08.

  4. Mozambique ranks 99th of 163 in Transparency International’s 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index; in a range from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (highly clean), it receives a score of 2.8. The Government has taken some steps to address corruption through an Anti-Corruption Law, which was approved in 2004, and the establishment of a Central Anti-Corruption Agency. In 2005, the Government also completed a Governance and Anti-Corruption Diagnostic Survey Report; the results of the survey helped identify priority actions and informed an Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2006-09 which is currently being implemented. Corruption remains, however, a major challenge.

  1. Aid flows are aligned on national priorities

    1. Government leadership of coordination

  1. The Government is taking some action to strengthen its leadership role in coordinating development assistance. For example, it is developing an External Aid and Cooperation Policy. While the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Coordination is formally in charge of coordinating development assistance, the Ministry of Planning and Development is responsible for day-to-day coordination through its role in the formulation and implementation of the PARPA and the PES. An ODA database, which was originally developed by the EC and the UN and was adopted by most external partners in 2006, is being handed over to the Government to become its official database.

  2. As a condition to start general budget support, in 2004, the PAP and the Government established a formal structure for regular government-PAP partner dialogue. The National Director of the Ministry of Planning and Development and the chair of the PAP group co-chair a Joint Steering Committee which meets monthly, originally to discuss budget support issues. The Joint Steering Committee includes the Troika Plus group, consisting of the previous, present and future chairs of the PAP group, plus the EC and the World Bank. An Economist Working Group, a PAF Coordination Group and Sector Working Groups, chaired by PAP partners, meet regularly and ensure regular dialogue with central and line ministries. There is also a PAP website to facilitate exchange of information among development partners.2 The PAP group has become influential enough that it now coordinates issues beyond its original mandate of budget support. However, it is not recognized by all external partners as a forum for discussion of all development issues.

  3. Before the establishment of the PAP, the World Bank and UNDP began co-chairing in-country monthly meetings of a Development Partners Group (DPG) that acts as a forum for information sharing among all external partners. DPG meeting are complemented by more frequent meetings of sector working groups. Discussions on the relation between the DPG and the PAP are ongoing.

  4. The Ministry of Planning and Development co-chairs Joint and Mid-Year Reviews to assess PARPA implementation. The Government has chosen the Joint and Mid-Year Reviews as the main instrument to garner external partner support, replacing the traditional pledging approach of Consultative Group (CG) meetings. The last CG meeting was held in Paris in October 2003 and was chaired by the World Bank.

    1. Partners’ assistance strategy alignment

  1. External partners have aligned their assistance strategies with the PARPA and the PES. The five major external partners are the World Bank, the EC, the USA, Denmark and the UK, accounting for approximately 67 percent of gross ODA in 2003-04. Net ODA accounted for 23.6 percent of GNI in 2004.3 Assistance provided by the PAP group, which is composed of the AfDB, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the EC, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the World Bank, is aligned with the PARPA through a Performance Assessment Framework (PAF), a multi-year matrix of actions associated with budget support. The 2006 PAF is aligned with the PARPA II Strategic Matrix and the PES and was jointly agreed by the Government, the PAP group and national stakeholders through the work of the Quality Control Group. PAP partners are discussing the development of a joint assistance strategy the terms, composition and timeline of which are still under discussion. The strategic objectives of the UN Development Assistance Framework for 2002-06 are based on the PARPA. The USAID Program supports PARPA objectives; it focuses on increasing economic growth and reducing poverty through rural income growth, improving the health of women and children, strengthening democratic governance at the municipal level and reducing opportunities for corruption. Japan also supports PARPA objectives. In July 2005, the Government prepared a Compact proposal to access funds provided by the US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). The proposed Compact focuses on water, sanitation and private sector development in the four poorest provinces. The MCC is providing financial and technical assistance to finalize the Compact. The Compact was designed before PARPA II. Its finalization is not being coordinated with existing coordination processes.

  2. Some public-private partnerships are also emerging to support PARPA implementation, although they are still at an early stage. In 2005, for example, sixty-five rural communities were involved in the management of natural resources and ninety-six forestry concessions were awarded to private operators.

    1. Partnership organization

  1. A number of development assistance agencies have taken steps to increase their presence in the country to better participate in Sector Working Groups; they have decentralized decision-making to their country offices following a progressive move toward joint budget support. For example, the World Bank Country Director is based in Maputo; four cluster leaders—Poverty Reduction and Economic Management, Rural, Energy/Finance, Private Sector and Infrastructure, Private Sector Development—and task managers for over 50 percent of the projects and programs financed by the World Bank are also based in Maputo. The EC has also decentralized decision-making processes and has a strong presence in the country. A number of bilateral partners, including AFD, Denmark, Ireland and USAID, have country office staffed with technical staff to manage the programs and projects they finance and participate in sector working groups.

  1. Strengthen capacity by coordinated support

    Coherent and coordinated capacity support

  1. Capacity support was mainly driven by external partners through the mid-to-late 1990s, as the Government struggled to define a clear capacity development strategy, partly limiting the impact of capacity development. Since 2000, the Government and external partners have taken action to better tailor capacity building to country needs through sector-wide approaches (SWAp) in agriculture, health and education. This approach has contributed to reducing fragmentation of capacity building efforts. A SWAp is also being finalized to strengthen coordinated support for the road sector. The Government and external partners are also taking action to strengthen coherence and coordination for public sector capacity support. They are planning to launch a SWAp to support the Government’s Public Sector Reform Program, which was introduced in 2003. Challenges ahead include the need to forge stronger links across sector capacity development programs.

  1. Use of country systems

    Donor financing relying on country systems

  1. Budget support accounts for 30 percent of total development assistance. PAP members provide approximately thirty percent of their assistance through the regular budget, thus relying on country systems. The PAF monitoring process seeks to rely to the extent possible on line ministries’ and decentralized government levels’ monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems to track progress in implementing the PARPA, while efforts are being made to strengthen these systems.

  2. The level of use of government public financial management systems for external partner funds remains very low; approximately two-fifths of external funds are disbursed through the national financial management and procurement systems. The provision of direct budget support is fully aligned with the Government’s public financial management systems, and there has been considerable progress in aligning the flow of funds in the sectors with the planning, budgetary, reporting and auditing procedures of the government. However, the weight of project aid remains dominant, requiring the use of separate cycles and management systems. The use of government procurement systems is quite limited. Most bilateral projects and programmes are still using almost exclusively non-national rules for procurement, with the exception of a small number of sector common funds. General and provincial budget support does use government procurement systems. Some efforts are being made by some partners to use existing M&E systems to monitor project implementation. However, progress has been slow because of weaknesses in government agencies’ M&E systems.

  1. Strengthen capacity by avoiding parallel implementation structures

    PIUs progressively phased out

  1. The total number of PIUs, including units defined both as parallel and as semi-integrated, is thirty-nine. In general, these PIUs are found across a range of sectors to implement stand alone projects; they are the established practice of a small number of external partners. Some external partners have already taken steps to integrate PIUs into Government structures. For example, in the case of the World Bank, a parallel PIU responsible for implementing a Financial Sector Technical Assistance Project has been integrated into the Ministry of Finance. Also, the PIU responsible for implementing a Education Sector Strategic Program Project has been incorporated into the Ministry of Education and Culture.

  1. Aid is more predictable

    Disbursements aligned with annual budgetary framework

  1. Budget support is aligned with the annual budgetary framework. The PARPA and PES review precede the annual Joint Reviews on the updated PAF matrix. This allows all parties to review past progress and make indicative commitments on the basis of actual outcomes in the previous fiscal year. PAP partners make their commitments within four weeks from the end of the annual Joint Review, in time for the preparation of the budget. In 2005, two-thirds of disbursements occurred in the first two quarters of the fiscal year.

  2. At the sector level, SWAps are also helping the Government and external partners align commitments with the annual budgetary framework. In 2005, for example, commitments to an Education Sector Support Fund supporting the education SWAp were made before June 2005, so that they could be reflected in the budget presented to the Assembly of the Republic. The sequence and timing of existing SWAp review processes has been aligned with the annual PARPA and PES review process, about two months after the end of the fiscal year, namely in late February or early March, thus allowing results from the previous fiscal year to inform these reviews.

  3. Efforts have also been made to include project financing in the budget. The Government and external partners have established an off-budget task force to bring off-budget funds, including external financing, on budget. To increase the share of ODA reported in the budget, all external partners, including emerging partners and all those who signed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, need to work more closely together and support the Government’s efforts to reflect ODA reported by all external partners in the budget and ensure that all partners notify the amount of their support timely and accurately.

  1. Aid is untied

  1. Multilateral assistance, which accounted for approximately 40 percent of gross ODA in 2004,4 is untied. Untied aid may increase through expected increases in funding from bilateral partners that as a policy provide only untied aid. There are also signs that tied bilateral aid might increase at the same time as emerging bilateral partners which provide tied aid become increasingly active.


  1. Use of common arrangements or procedures

  1. SWAps have helped streamline implementation arrangements. External partners support the health SWAp, through three basket funds, including a general fund and two funds covering programs for the provinces and for pharmaceutical supplies, which channel between a third and a half of all external assistance to the health sector. Each fund is governed by a separate Memorandum of Understanding. The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, CIDA and the World Bank support the education SWAp through the Education Sector Support Fund; they rely on joint reporting and monitoring. However, there are still a number of projects in education with separate implementation arrangements. External partners also follow joint financial management, reporting and monitoring systems to support an agriculture SWAp. Common implementation arrangements are formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding which was renewed in 2005. Also, DFID, the EC, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Belgium provide support for strengthening public financial management through a common fund, the SISTAFE Fund.

  1. Encouraging shared analysis

  1. Joint missions

  1. External partners are increasingly undertaking missions jointly, building on joint budget support and SWAps. In addition to the mandatory Joint Review and Mid-Year Review, the PAP group undertook seven other missions in 2005. Three of them were undertaken jointly and four individually. According to the 2005 Review of the PAP partners’ performance, the number of individual missions unrelated to general budget support fell significantly between 2004 and 2005, from 195 to 164. The World Bank undertakes approximately 60 missions each year, representing 37 percent of total missions unrelated to general budget support in 2005.

  2. A definition of missions in country has been adopted by the Government and external partners along the lines suggested by OECD/DAC: “Donor missions to the field are defined as missions that meet all of the following criteria: 1) the mission is undertaken by, or on behalf of, a donor, including by consultants commissioned by a donor; 2) the mission involved international travel typically, but not exclusively, from donor headquarters; 3) the mission made a request to meet with government officials, including local/provincial government for projects and programmes. This definition excludes missions undertaken by donors to attend events such as workshops and conferences that do not involve separate requests to meet with Government officials. This definition also excludes missions as part of regular common project/programme implementation”. The trend in the overall number of missions was high in 2005. In 2005, Direct Budget Support related missions increased. It has been agreed that a more effective system for recording the number of missions will be jointly agreed between the Government and external partners as part of the on-going dialogue on implementation of the Paris Declaration agenda.

  1. Analytical partnership

  1. External partners increasingly conduct analytic work jointly. The PAP Economists Working Group is responsible for coordinating joint analytical work underpinning dialogue with the Government in the areas of public financial management, economic and financial governance, and the link between growth and poverty reduction. In 2004, several external partners, including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the EC, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK, engaged in joint analysis with the Government and other development partners. The World Bank, Norway, and Sida completed a CFAA in December 2001. Also, the Government, in partnership with the World Bank, Sida, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, DFID, the Netherlands, the EC, and the IMF, conducted a Public Expenditure Review, which was undertaken in two phases in 2001 and in 2003. In 2004, the Government, in partnership with the World Bank, Denmark and Sida, also finalized a Legal and Judicial Assessment. External partners have posted 36 documents on the Country Analytic Work website as of October 2006.5

Managing for results

  1. Results oriented frameworks

    1. Quality of development information

  1. Quality of development information has improved. The Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE) regularly conducts household surveys, the last of which was conducted in 2002/03, participatory poverty assessments, which are conducted every two years since 2001, and rural participatory diagnoses, which are conducted in intervening years. The INE is also responsible for national accounts statistics and some sector statistics. In 2003, INE also completed a Demographic and Health Survey with data disaggregated by wealth index quintile. The latest population census was conducted in 1997 and a new one is scheduled for 2007. Data provided by sectoral agencies and line ministries is complemented by the Questionnaire of Indicators of Well-Being, which is undertaken on an annual basis. The Government has prepared a national statistical development strategy, with the support of a multi-donor Trust Fund for Statistical Capacity Building, managed by the World Bank. Most IMF General Data Dissemination System recommendations are met in terms of data periodicity and timeliness. However, financial statistics from state enterprises and local governments are not collected systematically.

    b. Stakeholder access to development information

  2. The Government disseminates information on new legislation and public policies through the Public Information Bureau, the Bureau de Informação Pública, and the national press. The Government has published the MTEF for 2007-09. Limited efforts have been made to disseminate a simplified version of Government strategies and the budget.

  3. Development information is increasingly made available on the web. The Government has launched a number of websites, including those of the Instituto Nacional de Estatística, the Government portals, the OP and the PARPA, where significant development information is posted in Portuguese and in English.6 Some of the information available on the Government’s portal websites include the 2005-09 Government’s Five-Year Program, the 2006 PES, the 2004-08 National Strategic Plan to fight HIV/AIDS, information on the 2005 budget and the PARPA. Agenda 2025, the PARPA, the PES, the BdPES and further information on the PARPA revision process are all available on the OP website, where summaries of annual OP meetings and analyses of sectoral expenses can also be found. The INE website also constitutes a useful source of information and contains most of the data collected through surveys.

    1. Coordinated country-level monitoring and evaluation

  1. A country-level M&E system is emerging, and the Government’s capacity for monitoring and evaluation has improved. The PARPA and PARPA II M&E systems have been integrated into existing Government mechanisms to avoid multiple reports. Significant improvements have been achieved in 2005 in terms of strengthening the semi-annual and annual BdPES, which is the main monitoring tool for all Government activities. The BdPES tracks progress in PARPA II and PARPA implementation and reports on progress toward achieving the MDGs. The financial execution of PARPA II and PARPA priority programs is tracked through quarterly budget execution reports prepared by the Government. However, sector ministries’ M&E systems need to be better linked to PES indicators; they also need strengthening to provide timely and relevant information to inform the BdPES. In an attempt to address this issue, the PARPA II Strategic Matrix incorporates indicators and targets included in the M&E matrices accompanying sectoral papers prepared by the Working Groups which prepared the PARPA II. Baselines for PARPA targets have been updated to reflect new information collected during the implementation of the PARPA. There have been some improvements in the harmonization of sector and provincial monitoring systems with BdPES preparation.

Mutual accountability

    Development effectiveness assessment frameworks

  1. The Government and external partners have established an effective development partnership based on mutual commitment and open dialogue on the content and progress of the PARPA, the MDGs, the MTEF, the PES and the budget. The PAF provides the basis for assessing Government and PAP performance. Each year, PAP partners agree on an updated PAF. All performance assessments are undertaken jointly by the Government and PAP partners. Annual Joint Reviews are undertaken following the production of the BdPES and focus on reaching a joint view on performance as a basis for aid commitments. Mid-Year Reviews are undertaken prior to submission of the PES and the budget to the Assembly of the Republic. Annual PAP Performance Assessment Scoring conducted by independent consultants rates PAP partners against a matrix of targets and indicators drawn from the Paris Declaration, though more ambitious in a number of areas. Since 2004, PAP partners have supported annual independent PAP partner performance assessments, based on the PAP partners’ PAF indicators, conducted by national and international consultants.

  2. Mozambique has signed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Mozambique also participates in the African Peer Review Mechanism to help ensure that polices and practices conform to the principles of the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance.


AFD (2006), L’activité du groupe de l’Agence Française de Développement au Mozambique. Paris.

Castel-Branco, Carlos N.; Gerster, Richard; and Killick, Tony (2005), Perfect Partners? The performance of Programme Aid Partners in Mozambique, 2004. Maputo.

Constitution of Mozambique (2000). Maputo.

Diogo, L. (2006), Post-Conflict Mozambique’s Reconstruction: A Transferable Strategy in Africa. Washington DC.

Economic Commission for Africa (2005), Assessing Public Financial Management and Accountability in the Context of Budget Transparency in Africa. Addis Ababa.

EIU (2004), (2006), Mozambique Country Profile. London.

__________ (2006), Mozambique Country Report (August). London.

Ernst & Young (2006), Review of the PAP’s Performance in 2005 and PAP’s PAF Matrix Targets for 2006. Final Report. Maputo.

Freeman, T. (2005), Effective States and Engaged Societies: Capacity Development for Growth, Service Delivery, Empowerment and Security in Africa. The Case of Mozambique. (Case study prepared for the World Bank Capacity Development Task Force)

Gerster, R. and Harding, A. (2004), Learning Assessment of Joint Review 2004. Final Report. Maputo.

Government of Mozambique (2001), Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty (2001-2005) (PARPA). Maputo.

__________ (2003), Agenda 2025. The Nations’ Vision and Strategy. Maputo.

__________ (2003), PARPA Implementation Evaluation Report 2001. Maputo.

__________ (2005), Review of the Economic and Social Plan of 2004. Maputo.

__________ (2005), Plano Económico e Social para 2006. Maputo.

Government of Mozambique and Programme Aid Partners (2004), Memorandum of Understanding between Government of the Republic of Mozambique and Programme Aid Partners. Maputo.

__________ (2006), Joint Review 2006. Aide Mémoire. Maputo.

IMF (2003), Republic of Mozambique: Report on Observance of Standards and Codes – Data Module; Response by the Authorities; and Detailed Assessment Using Data Quality Assessment Framework. Washington, DC.

__________ (2004), Republic of Mozambique: 2003 Article IV Consultation – Staff Report; Staff Statement; Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Mozambique. Washington, DC.

IMF and World Bank (2001), Mozambique Joint Staff Assessment of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Washington DC.

__________ (2003), Republic of Mozambique Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report Joint Staff Assessment. Washington DC.

__________ (2004), Mozambique Second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report and Joint Staff Assessment. Washington DC.

__________ (2005), The Republic of Mozambique Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report Joint Staff Advisory Note. Washington DC.

IMF IEO and World Bank OED (2004), Republic of Mozambique Evaluation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) Process and Arrangements Under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF). Washington DC.

Lawson, A., De Renzio, P. and Umarji, M. (2006), Assessment of Public Finance Management in Mozambique 2004/05 Based on PEFA Methodology. Final Report. Maputo.

Martínez, J. (2006), Implementing a sector wide approach in health: the case of Mozambique. HLSP Technical Approach Paper.

MCC (2006), Mozambique: Country Status Report.

OECD/DAC (2005), African Economic Outlook: Mozambique. Paris.

__________ (2005), Survey on Harmonization and Alignment. Progress in Implementing Harmonization and Alignment in 14 Partner Countries. Paris.

UN (2002), UN Development Assessment Framework 2002-2006 Mozambique. Maputo.

UNCDF (2006), Mozambique Country Brief.

USAID (2004), ‘General Budget Support and Sector Program Assistance: Mozambique Country Case Study’. PPC Evaluation Working Paper No. 18.

______-(2006), Mozambique 2006 Congressional Budget Justification. Washington DC.

VENRO (2006), PRSP-Watch. Länderprofile: Mosambik (Mai). Berlin.

World Bank (2003), Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of Mozambique. Washington DC.

__________ (2003), Mozambique - Public Expenditure Review: Phase 2. Sectoral Expenditures. Sector Report. Washington DC.

__________ (2004), Mozambique - Poverty Reduction Support Operation Project. Program Document. Washington DC.

__________ (2005), Mozambique – Country Economic Memorandum: Sustaining Growth and Reducing Poverty. Washington DC.

__________ (2005), Mozambique- First Poverty Reduction Support Credit Project. Implementation Completion Report. Washington DC.

__________ (2006), Mozambique – Financial Sector Technical Assistance Project. Project Appraisal Document. Washington DC.

__________ (2006), Mozambique – Maputo Urban Development Program Project. Washington DC.

__________ (2006), Mozambique – Public Sector Reform Project. Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet. Washington DC.

__________ (2006), Mozambique – Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project. Project Appraisal Document. Washington DC.

___________ (2006), Country Assistance Strategy Progress Report for the Period FY04-FY06. Washington DC.

___________ (2006), Country Brief.

___________ (2006), Good Practice Briefs on Harmonization and Alignment: Independent Monitoring (DRAFT May 22, 2006).

World Bank IEG (2005), An Independent Review of World Bank Support for Capacity Building in Africa: The Case of Mozambique. Washington DC.

Related Websites

Aid Harmonization and Alignment: Initiatives for Mozambique


Center for Global Development: MCA Monitor




European Commission’s Delegation to Mozambique


Embassy of Denmark in Maputo


IMF and Mozambique


Millennium Challenge Corporation


Transparency International: Corruption Perception Indexes


University of Birmingham: Joint Evaluation for General Budget Support


USAID Mozambique


World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA)


World Bank: Mozambique


1 Agenda 2025 was completed in December 2003. The PARPA II was finalized in May 2006. The first PARPA was completed in April 2001. A PARPA Implementation Evaluation Report was completed in February 2003. Reviews of the Economic and Social Plan for 2003 and 2004 were finalized in March 2004 and June 2005, respectively.

2 http://www.pap.org.mz/

3 See OECD/DAC Aid Statistics at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/7/1882362.gif

4 See OECD/DAC Aid Statistics at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/7/1882362.gif

5 http://www.countryanalyticwork.net

6 www.ine.gov.mz; http://www.govnet.gov.mz; http://www.govmoz.gov.mz; http://www.op.gov.mz; http://www.govmoz.gov.mz/parpa/index.htm

Download 77.08 Kb.

Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2023
send message

    Main page